A newly filed lawsuit takes aim at Apple and its App Store and iTunes Store, alleging that they violate two patents related to digital distribution of content. In addition, Apple has reportedly settled in another patent-related suit filed earlier this year.

Olympic Developments vs. Apple, Microsoft, Amazon

A new lawsuit filed in this week in a U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division, challenges a number of high-profile technology companies that distribute content and software over the Internet. Olympic Developments AG LLC believes that the defendants are in violation of two patents entitled "Transactional Processing System" and "Device for Controlling Remote Interactive Receiver."

U.S. Patent No. 5,475,585, "Transactional Processing System," is for a system that provides products and services through credit card transactions. Filed in 1994, it describes "real-time authorization of payments for a plurality of products and services."

U.S. Patent No. 6,246,600, "Device for Controlling Remote Interactive Receiver," was first filed in 1997. It describes a "remote" that stores financial information.

Olympic Developments has alleged that Apple is in violation of both patents, as its digital storefronts allow users to receive "desired programming selections," and also grant the ability to "access and/or view and/or purchase products from a remote programming system," the suit reads, via devices like the iPhone and iPad.

Apple reportedly settles suit with Sharing Sound

Many of the same companies in this week's new lawsuit were also named in a complaint filed earlier this year by Sharing Sound, including Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Barnes and Noble. According to TechCrunch, Apple has opted to settle in that lawsuit, filed in May.

Sharing Sound is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,247,130, entitled "Distribution of Musical Products by a Web Site Vendor Over the Internet."

Author Robin Wauters said that most companies in the lawsuit already moved to settle with Sharing Sound. Apple is reportedly the latest.

the patent says "The receiver contains a credit or debit card reader" but such is no the case unless you are talking about the brick and mortar stores - the App store does not have a "card reader" - it would seem the prior patent regarding the 1-click thing would have already covered this - and if that patent is applicable - then how can this one be?

Queue the argument regarding the patent process and why is a patent issued for an idea or a concept vs an implementation of that concept?

I should file a patent, method for distributing 3D movie files over the internet using wires with computerized boxes on the end, and sometimes wireless. Some day it will start happening, and I'll be rich.

Seriously though, if patent law works this way, what will be the incentive for making anything any more? Patent troll is the way to go, no substantial risk, and tons of upside.

I should file a patent, method for distributing 3D movie files over the internet using wires with computerized boxes on the end, and sometimes wireless. Some day it will start happening, and I'll be rich.

Seriously though, if patent law works this way, what will be the incentive for making anything any more? Patent troll is the way to go, no substantial risk, and tons of upside.

Abstract outside of that to include any form of Radiated waveforms between one to many devices which transmit any form of sensory data and you can hook them all.

I think that if you sue a company for infringing on your patent and you lose...you should pay their attorney fees for inconveniencing them. This will really make people think before they go troll crazy.

A newly filed lawsuit takes aim at Apple and its App Store and iTunes Store, alleging that they violate two patents related to digital distribution of content. In addition, Apple has reportedly settled in another patent-related suit filed earlier this year....

I didn't even bother with the third one but neither of those first two are even close to anything Apple or anyone else is doing.

It's the details of the implementation that count and both are very weak on details. Those they do mention don't correspond to anything Apple has patented or is using. The similarities are general, and conceptual only and you can't win a patent suit on that. The "remote" they are talking about is plugged into your home phone jack with a cable for starters. Who even has a home phone or a "modem" anymore?